Am surprised by your departure -- and feeling a bit guilty, afraid that I may have been one of the SPAs who caused you frustration. As a new user I tried hard to follow the guidelines and be cordial, and I really appreciate all that you did to help orient me to Wikipedia culture. You were gracious in answering my questions, and I do appreciate your kind comments on my Talk page. In your absence, however short or long, I will do my best to respect your contributions to the article on Transcendental Meditation. My only hope is that the criticisms be fair and accurate. I have no interest in removing all of them, especially since they are only a quick Google away. The Wikipedia article on Transcendental Meditation represents our best hope for a valuable middle ground between the exclusively positive TM sites and the exclusively critical anti-TM sites. It is here that people will be able to see both sides presented in a neutral and even-handed way and then come to whatever conclusion they wish. TimidGuy15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding garbage to articles
Adding garbage to the middle of an article as you did here is not appropriate. We've never crossed paths before, and I haven't looked up your contributions, but if this is typical of your editing style than I understand why you'd find things to be painful. If you happen to come back to read this, and this was a single event brought on by wikistress rather than your typical editing style, then please accept my appology for bringing it up this way on your talk page. Best wishes, whatever decision you make in regards to Wikipedia. --Stéphane Charette23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is really inappropriate is your attacking a departed editor in this way, three days after the edit in question. Perhaps you should have bothered to look at his contribs first. And you sound rather as if you think Askolnick put an argument visibly in the article itself—you do realize it was a commented-out query, I hope? Bishonen | talk15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Whether someone has temporarily left, permenantly left, or hasn't left at all, I still stand by my statement that adding this block of text into the middle of the article is not appropriate. Note that this wasn't the first time this was done -- if you look through the history of the article, Askolnick had done this before. Should all wrong behaviour be excused simply because someone threatens to leave Wikipedia? No. This wasn't an attack, as you attempted to label it. I was simply calling attention on Askolnick's talk page to something s/he did that was not appropriate. In addition, I don't know of a regulation that prevents me from bringing up on a talk page something that happened 3 days ago. If you look at my own contributions, you'll note that I was away on vacation for just under 2 weeks which is why I didn't see this on the day it happened. --Stéphane Charette17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "regulation"? Oh, please. It's quite all right to apply your ordinary human judgement, you know. And, yeah, I will "attempt to label" the word "garbage" (in the heading, yet—the only heading on this blanked page) as "an attack". Please just think about it. Bishonen | talk18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Looks like you left Wikipedia, but incase you didn't, I just wanted to let you know that I deleted the fact tags you placed after every paragraph about Spiricom on the EVP page. I think thats going a little overboard. I instead added a faculaity dispute tag at the top of the article section which I feel is more appropriate. Cyberia2322:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TM
Thanks for your comments at the TM arbcom. I hope we at Wikipedia can provide a more balanced and even heading review of this topic than often found in the mainstream press. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Skolnick your reputation of course proceeds you and I too would like to thank you for your comment on the TM article. Unfortunately, because you have added it to the talk section of (and not the evidence section) of the evidence section, your comments will be excluded from the final arbitration process I think (and will be read by very few). Would you be kind enough to copy them to this section [[1]] please? This may then allow them to be read by all and perhaps influence the decision process? If you require and help please let me know. I too have a professional interest in the state of research and would be happy to assist. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your comments.
Afraid my Wikipedia navigation and posting skills have gotten quite rusty. I'll try to copy my evidence statement to the correct section.--Askolnick (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Askolnick. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Hey, so nice to get such a warm welcome. Truth is that I have poked my head back in here once in a while to change something that I noticed . Can't chat right now. Want to add one more thing to Randi's articlee (about his exposure of Popoff's con game on Johnny Carson's show. Would love to catch up. send me your email and I'll try to continue this tomorrow.
:-) I thought I was seeing things at first — it really saddened me when you left. I've got the e-mail, I'll use it when I've got a moment — please remove it from public view. You'll be getting malicious crawlbots finding it and then you'll get a lot of spam. Do you know about the "e-mail this user" feature which you can enable through your preferences? I know it seems like fuss and red tape, but it's actually helpful. I've written a note for you on your bio talkpage — nothing too urgent — about a reference. (After fully enjoying the discussion on the page about the inappropriateness of calling an [editor] an [editor].) Bishonen | talk14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, you're making me verklempt. So nice to feel missed. Usually I just feel good when people miss me with stones and broken bottles ;-o Still have to put off that chat. I spent so much time working on adding much more to Peter Popoff section of the article on James Randi. I've forgotten how to "Wiki" and I'm especially rusty writing "reference Klingon." Would you kindly look over my edit and fix any problems and give me some feedback? I'm considering doing more in the future than popping back into Wikipedia every few months or so to add or correctjust a few words here and there.
I've become quite reasonable at wikiing over the years — one of my socks even started creating simple templates recently, which astonished me rather. (Check her page if you want to admire them.) The currently fashionable reference Klingon is unfortunately an exception. I can handle the old <ref></ref>, if that'll serve. Let me take a look. Bishonen | talk21:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oh… heck. There's something wrong with one of the footnotes to your refurbished paragraph. Note number 6. It's supposed to be a new note, referencing the Peter Popoff stuff, isn't it? And you added it? I so wish I understood the "ref name" stuff better, or indeed at all. I hate it so much. But what I think happened there is that you re-used a ref name (namely, "Randi") which was already in use, as the oddly low number of it suggests. There's a ref name="Randi" already in the intro. You have used it for a different reference. Or that's what I think. The software seems to have reacted by ignoring your new reference, and instead pointing to the already existing note 6, which is about Uri Geller and the term woo-woo. (And which is a dead link, at that; I just tagged it.) That makes sense, if you think about it.
If I was more sure of my ground here I'd just fix it, but as it is, you'd better do it. Just give the note a new "name". I'm sure the rest of the reference is fine (just not currently showing up).
Otherwise, everything seems good. You may well get complaints about bunching up all the footnotes at the end of the paragraph, though I think it's the best place for them, myself. Either there, or all at the first sentence (that's preferred in my own field, but not comprehended on Wikipedia). They all refer to the whole of it, after all. But people often think, or pretend to think, that a particular sentence "needs a citation". There's no pleasing them; I'd leave it as it is.
Hi Askolnick. I'm sorry to land this on you when (as I understand it) you have just returned to active editing. However, the comment you posted on this page on 19 August was potentially libellous, so I have removed and suppressed the content. Please do not re-add comments of that nature to any page on the English Wikipedia. Whether you discuss the matter off-site, by e-mail or similar, is of course not my concern. Thank you for your understanding. AGK[•]17:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, sorry. It finally sunk in that you were referring to my comments to Bishonen -- not to any of the editing I did on Aug.19. I don't know the comments you objected to, but it doesn't matter, I didn't intend them to be public, just for Bishonen. I forgot how things work here. I'll keep in mind that everything posted on one's talk page is the same as being published in Wikipedia. I'm sorry for misunderstanding and sounding off. I thought you were referring to my editing -- which of course is utterly infallible ;-) Askolnick (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat taken aback by your response, so I'm glad to see it arose from a misunderstanding. No apology is necessary, and I'll let you return to the proper work of editing. Question your editing? Goodness, no :-). AGK[•]20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, but clearly warranted. Sorry I didn't read you message more carefully. I get that way sometimes when I find myself "suppressed." :-( You guys need to find a gentler word than "suppressed. How about, "You've been oversighted..." Much nicer ;-) Askolnick (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the process has an awful name. Wikipedia:Bureaucrat is probably the only worse title on Wikipedia, and like Suppression/Oversight it was named when we didn't seem to think these things through very well... Regards, AGK[•]21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? I'm disillusioned. I always assumed "Bureaucrat" was deliberately humorous. The only problem with the word is that the spelling defeats most wikipedians. Bishonen | talk22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
